Browse regulations

This regulation implements the Coastal Zone Management Act by setting requirements for state coastal management program approval by NOAA, including comprehensive enforceable policies, defined boundaries, special management areas, public participation, and federal consistency requirements. States must meet these criteria to receive federal grants, and federal agencies must conform to approved state programs.

Conditional federal grants commandeer state governments into a federal regulatory scheme, violating Tenth Amendment federalism. The program imposes compliance costs on property owners and businesses through permitting, restrictions, and boundary uncertainties, disproportionately harming small enterprises. The vague 'national interest' review creates a backdoor for federal bureaucrats to veto local decisions, enabling regulatory capture and stifling economic growth. Eliminating this program restores coastal management to states and localities, reducing bureaucracy and unlocking productive use of coastal resources.

Regulation sets procedures and criteria for designating Sea Grant Colleges and Regional Consortia—institutions receiving federal funds for marine research, education, and advisory services. It defines terms, eligibility (3-year program history, site review, nine qualifying areas), application process, and ongoing performance standards, overseen by NOAA/Commerce.

The program enacts federal overreach into research and education—properly state/private functions—creating a costly accreditation bureaucracy. Matching funds distort institutional incentives toward fundraising over mission. Centralized funding allocation cannot replicate dispersed market knowledge, crowding out private philanthropy and state initiatives. The regulatory capture risk entrenches incumbents, raising barriers to entry and stifling innovation in marine science.

NASA's internal regulation implementing NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) compliance. It establishes environmental policies, assigns responsibilities to NASA officials (Associate Administrator for Management, Center Directors, etc.), defines categorical exclusions for routine actions, and sets procedures for Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for actions with potential significant impacts. Covers all NASA activities nationwide including space launches, facility operations, research, and property management.

This is internal agency procedure implementing NEPA, not a binding federal regulation on the public. While NASA should consider environmental impacts, NEPA's procedural requirements create massive delays and costs for space programs with negligible environmental benefit relative to the regulatory burden. The categorical exclusions list is overly complex and bureaucratic. NASA's mission is space exploration and aeronautics research—environmental review should be streamlined to the absolute minimum necessary to comply with underlying substantive environmental laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc.). This regulation exemplifies mission creep and regulatory inertia. Repeal it and replace with a simple rule: NASA complies with applicable federal environmental statutes, but NEPA review is categorically excluded for all space launch activities, research operations, and facility maintenance unless there is a direct, substantial discharge to air or water requiring a permit under other laws.

Establishes NASA's internal security classification program for protecting national security information, following Executive Order 13526. Covers classification levels (Top Secret, Secret, Confidential), declassification timelines, derivative classification, classification guides, and responsibilities for safeguarding classified information. Applies primarily to NASA-generated information and materials relating to military technology, foreign relations, intelligence, nuclear materials, and weapons of mass destruction.

Americans would be worse off without this regulation because NASA would lack a standardized, accountable system for protecting genuinely sensitive national security information related to space technology, defense applications, and nuclear materials. The regulation's structured classification levels, mandatory declassification timelines, and prohibition against classifying to conceal embarrassment or restrain competition provide necessary guardrails. Deleting it would create chaos and increase risk of unauthorized disclosure of information whose compromise could cause serious or exceptionally grave damage to national security.

Registers and regulates foreign air freight forwarders and cooperative shippers associations, providing limited exemptions from federal air transportation regulations while imposing reporting, disclosure, and administrative requirements.

Creates unnecessary regulatory barriers for foreign freight intermediaries, imposing compliance costs that are passed to consumers and protecting incumbent carriers from competition. The registration regime and 'public interest' discretion interfere with voluntary market arrangements that private ordering and existing legal frameworks could govern more efficiently.

FAA enforcement procedures for aviation violations including complaint filing, investigations, administrative actions, civil penalties, and certificate actions with detailed procedural requirements and delegation of authority to Chief Counsel and enforcement officials.

This regulation creates an extensive bureaucratic enforcement apparatus that imposes massive compliance costs on aviation industry while duplicating state-level enforcement capabilities. The procedural complexity and multiple appeal mechanisms create regulatory uncertainty that stifles innovation and competition in aviation, with costs ultimately passed to consumers through higher fares.

This SBA regulation prohibits discrimination by recipients of Small Business Administration financial assistance on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, handicap, national origin, age, or source of income. It covers employment practices, provision of goods/services, credit transactions, and facility accessibility. Recipients must provide reasonable accommodations for handicapped persons and religious observances unless it causes undue hardship. The regulation requires assurances of compliance, maintains reporting requirements, and empowers SBA to suspend or terminate financial assistance for violations through formal administrative proceedings.

This regulation imposes excessive compliance costs on small businesses receiving federal assistance—burdens that are nearly 30% higher per employee than for large corporations. It extends federal control into private enterprise through conditional spending, requiring subjective 'reasonable accommodation' standards and affirmative action that distort market incentives. The threat of funding termination creates coercive leverage over businesses, while the extensive reporting, record-keeping, and facility modification requirements divert resources from productive economic activity. Such civil rights enforcement is properly a state function; federalism erosion here undermines local accountability and creates one-size-fits-all mandates that ignore regional differences and market-based solutions to discrimination concerns.

This regulation establishes the National Credit Union Central Liquidity Facility (CLF), a government corporation within the NCUA that provides liquidity advances to member credit unions. It defines membership requirements (Regular members: natural person credit unions; Agent members: corporate credit unions), capital stock subscriptions (0.5% of paid-in capital), collateral requirements, and application processes for meeting liquidity needs including short-term, seasonal, and emergency credit.

This government-sponsored liquidity facility creates moral hazard by providing a taxpayer-backed backstop that distorts normal market discipline. Credit unions may take on greater risk knowing they have access to CLF funding during liquidity crises. The facility represents improper federal involvement in financial markets that should be resolved through private sector solutions—credit unions could obtain lines of credit from private banks or form private liquidity cooperatives. Even though funded by member subscriptions, the CLF uses government authority and regulatory power, creating a two-tiered system that protects certain institutions from market consequences and may inhibit the natural correction of imprudent business practices. The complex regulatory structure adds compliance costs while undermining the price signal mechanism that would otherwise punish risky behavior and reward prudent management.

This regulation establishes NEPA compliance procedures for the Export-Import Bank, requiring environmental reviews for financing that could affect environmental quality in the US, its territories, or possessions. It implements early consultation requirements, defines classes of actions, and mandates consideration of environmental documents in decision-making.

NEPA compliance creates massive regulatory overhead that delays projects and increases costs without demonstrable environmental benefits. For export financing, the environmental impacts are already assessed by the host country, making this duplicative review an unnecessary barrier to American exports and economic growth.

This regulation establishes reimbursement rates and procedures for financial institutions when government authorities request customer financial records, covering search, processing, reproduction, and transportation costs, with specific exemptions for certain types of requests and cost recovery mechanisms tied to BLS wage data.

This regulation creates a costly bureaucratic reimbursement system that distorts market incentives, enables excessive government surveillance of financial records, and imposes compliance burdens on financial institutions without clear evidence of public benefit. The government should not have special access to private financial records at taxpayer expense.

Regulation requires national banks making home loans to collect extensive applicant data (demographics, income, property details, loan terms) and retain for 25 months. Banks meeting thresholds must report quarterly; all must make data available to OCC examiners. Race/sex must be obtained voluntarily or via visual observation/surname if declined. OCC can mandate additional monitoring based on vague 'cause to believe' discriminatory practices standard.

Imposes massive compliance costs—especially on small banks (30% higher per-employee burden)—while violating privacy through mandatory visual observation of race. The 'cause to believe' standard enables arbitrary enforcement fishing expeditions. Though preventing discrimination is legitimate, this blanket mandate is disproportionate; targeted enforcement using existing legal authorities could address actual violations without systemic data collection that primarily serves regulatory overreach and creates barriers to entry.

This regulation establishes semiannual assessment fees that national banks, Federal savings associations, Federal branches, and Federal agencies pay to the OCC to fund regulatory oversight. Fees are calculated using a tiered asset-based structure with progressive marginal rates, include surcharges for lower exam ratings (ratings 3-5), and cover fiduciary activities and special examinations. The OCC publishes annual fee schedules and may index rates for inflation.

The assessment fees represent a hidden tax on financial services that increases costs for consumers and businesses. This regulation perpetuates federal overreach into banking—an area traditionally reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment—centralizing regulatory power in Washington. The complex tiered structure creates compliance burdens and administrative overhead while enabling regulatory capture and raising barriers to competition that particularly harm small banks. Americans would be better off with state-level banking regulation or market-based oversight, eliminating these costs entirely.

This regulation implements the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the Federal Election Commission, establishing procedures for public access to records, defining fee structures, exemptions, and appeal processes for FOIA requests.

Americans would be worse off if this regulation was deleted because it ensures transparency in federal elections by providing public access to FEC records, which is essential for democratic accountability and preventing corruption in campaign finance.

This 1978 regulation implements the Natural Gas Policy Act by mandating curtailment priorities for natural gas deliveries during shortages. It prohibits interstate pipelines from reducing deliveries to 'essential agricultural uses' and 'high-priority users' (residences, small commercial establishments under 50 Mcf/day, schools, hospitals, and public safety facilities) except under specific conditions, creating a government-mandated user hierarchy.

This command-and-control regulation distorts market allocation by replacing price signals with bureaucrat-determined 'essential' user priorities. The arbitrary classifications invite regulatory capture while imposing ongoing compliance costs and administrative burdens on interstate pipelines. The negligible probability of a shortage severe enough to require such central planning does not justify permanently distorting natural gas markets, raising costs for all consumers, and undermining contractual freedom. Market mechanisms, voluntary contracts, and state emergency powers would better handle genuine supply disruptions without creating permanent distortions.

Regulation prescribes life cycle cost analysis methodology for federal building energy and water conservation investments, mandates specific discount rates and energy price projections, and establishes procedures for energy savings performance contracts with qualified contractor lists.

Imposes heavy administrative burdens and distorts investment decisions through one-size-fits-all discount rates and energy price forecasts, leading to misallocation of taxpayer funds. Creates regulatory capture via DOE contractor lists. Agencies could achieve cost-effective energy savings through business practices without centralized mandates.